W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-hydra@w3.org > January 2015

Re: remove hydra:Resource and hydra:Class

From: Chris Chapman <chris@pentandra.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 17:38:40 -0700
To: public-hydra@w3.org
Message-ID: <20150106003840.GD4311@rach.conce.rto>
On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 12:58:30PM +0100, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
> Dear all,
> For reasons of simplicity and vocabulary reuse,
> could we remove hydra:Resource and hydra:Class?
> Right now, everything in the Hydra Core Vocabulary
> is a hydra:Resource, and all classes are hydra:Class.
> The only difference between hydra:Resource and rdfs:Resource
> is that hydra:Resource instances are dereferenceable;
> and rdfs:Resource itself adds no semantics whatsoever, since
> “all things described by RDF are instances of the class rdfs:Resource” [1].
> Dereferenceability is orthogonal to ontological relationships,
> and should IMHO be a recommended practice in the spec
> rather than an ontological relationship. It does not add anything at all:
> - If a client wants to dereference, the absence of hydra:Resource
>   does *not* mean something is *not* dereferenceable.
> - If a client wants to dereference a hydra:Resource,
>   it takes the exact same steps it would for something
>   that is not explicitly labeled a hydra:Resource.
> - The only difference is the “guarantee” offered by the ontology
>   that something is dereferenceable; but actually doing the dereferencing
>   and finding out whether something is dereferenceable
>   involves the exact same step, i.e., GETting the thing.
>   No gain there.
> In addition, hydra:Class is simply the disjunction
> of hydra:Resource and rdfs:Class,
> so by the above reasoning, we can simply make it rdfs:Class.
> It seems to me that hydra:Resource and hydra:Class
> are artifacts of something that no longer has importance.
> I therefore propose to simplify and clarify the ontology by:
> - removing hydra:Resource and mentions of it;
> - removing hydra:Class and replace mentions of it by rdfs:Class.
> If necessary, we can add something to the spec about dereferencing,
> but I don't think that this would add something.
> Any thoughts on this?
> If we all agree, I can make the necessary edits to the spec.

Completely agree. While I appreciate the sentiment, dereferenceability
cannot be enforced at the semantic level anyways.

Chris Chapman

Pentandra Research Solutions, Inc.
Breaking Research Barriers
Tel: +1 435 294 2964
Email: chris@pentandra.com
Twitter: @cd_chapman
Website: http://pentandra.com

Received on Tuesday, 6 January 2015 00:39:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:29:44 UTC